A couple of days ago Christof Heimhilcher blogged about his style of play (in German) and it resonated with a couple of observations I made over the years. Roleplaying games allow for a broad spectrum of interests to overlap and being catered within the same game. Not all combinations work well though. So, what is my style of play and how does it affect the games I play and write?

When I started working on my own roleplaying game, my main intent was to avoid switching systems whenever I wanted to play a different genre. And I wanted to keep it simple because maybe I could play it with my kids. Within these broad guidelines, I picked whatever I liked, improved what I thought needed improvement and filled the gaps with a lot of ideas that seemed convincing at the time. I did put together some playable versions. We had fun playing them and some players even used it for their own games, but it never really convinced me. After years and years of writing, playtesting, re-writing, I finally understood what I did wrong. I created what I liked at the moment, but didn't follow a clear purpose.

Comparing attributes between systems I see a lot of similarities but as much differences as well. Sometimes the list of available features is more or less convincing. Isn't there a universal answer to the question, which attributes are necessary for gameplay and which could be dispensed? Can we check suitability before starting a campaign or picking a new system?

Trust is the basis of human relationships. Loss of trust ends partnerships and employment contracts. Gain of trust lets you make friends and win at court.

It is often implied all players in a roleplaying game would trust each other. But that's not only untrue at conventions. There are also slight differences between friends, even within the same group. Much worse are roleplaying games in a work environment or for educational purposes because they even lack the expectation of fun that would otherwise bind participants. That's when roleplaying becomes agony.